Revival, Faith Healing, and Healing Prayer
Update (5/27/08): Before you conclude that I’m a deist and that I don’t believe in any miracles at all, please read the discussion in the comments, where, to put it briefly I affirm both healing miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are things I accept by faith, however, whilst doubting one’s ability to prove them. Now on to the post as originally written . . .
The whole discussion about Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival has led me to think back a great deal about the Brownsville Revival. There were and are a number of concerns while at the same time I don’t want to be a blanket critic. But I have personally seen people seriously hurt by the excesses that tend to accompany a mass revival movement.
Activity involves risk, so when I give cautions about risks one should not assume that I am saying to avoid the whole movement and everyone in it because there are risks. But there are more and less risky ways of going about spiritual business.
Let me outline my starting point first. I will likely say more about these things later. I have been called a liberal charismatic, initially by an enemy. Though I personally prefer “passionate moderate” the label does have some truth. In fact, when I presented it to my wife and a number of our friends as part of the subtitle to my book (Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic), they thought it fit me perfectly. So if your friends (and your wife) think the label bestowed by an enemy fits, perhaps there’s something to it. I am charismatic in the sense that I believe any gift of the Holy Spirit can be present at any time. I do not hold that God spoke more in the time of the Hebrew prophets or the apostles than he does today. I don’t believe God was more willing to heal back in those times than he is now.
I have personally experienced some of the “manifestations” that accompany revivals–speaking in tongues (or more accurately some form of prayer language), being slain in the spirit, and so forth. I have found occasions of each experience to be very spiritually helpful. Nonetheless I started using the term “side effects” rather than “manifestations” for these things, because I think the manifestation of the Spirit is focused on ministry that is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Those who teach that the side effects demonstrate that the Spirit is present can lead to a great deal of hurt. I encountered people who attended Brownsville and were not slain in the Spirit who felt that they must be spiritually inferior for that reason. Many charismatic and Pentecostal churches hold that a prayer language or speaking in tongues is a necessary demonstration of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and some that it is necessary evidence for salvation.
I may blog about some of those experiences in a later post. Right now I want to say some words on faith healing. I blogged recently about a healing service, and then yesterday healing prayer was included in a regular service of worship. Both of these services were a blessing to me just being present. That experience is detached from any physical healing that may have taken place.
You see, I have no experience that will say that prayer, apart from the application of medical science will heal. I have seen people prayed for who went on to get better. I have observed this happen outside the predicted parameters. My own father’s recovery in 1971 was contrary to the predictions of the doctor, but in any scientific sense one must take into account the possibility that the doctor’s predictions were simply wrong.
Further, I don’t expect to get such evidence, unless it’s accidental and comes from someone else. Why? I will never test healing prayer, laying on of hands, or any similar activity in that way. I have strong theological reason to suggest that prayer is not a substitute for medical science. One could always have a test group prayed over by faith healers, and another group offered the best medical science has to offer. My suspicion is that the first group will do much worse than the second. But I would regard it as unethical to try.
My concern with faith healing is that the expressed expectation of the healer is going to lead the person who receives prayer to believe they are healed, or to believe that their healing will come apart from medical care. I have every reason to believe that they will probably be wrong about that. I previously related the case in which a pastor, who should have known better, told my 12 year old son who was in chemotherapy that God had told him that everyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed from cancer. For a 12 year old that logically meant he no longer needed to continue chemotherapy–but he did need to continue.
I can testify that there are many things about having a child sick, for example, that go well beyond the obvious. In our case, my wife was forced to go to half-time on family medical leave. Despite having good health insurance, we piled up medical bills with the copays and deductibles. Our time was strained. Our mental energy was strained. Then someone would come along and say, “If you will just go to _____, they will pray for your son and I believe he will be healed.” If we made the decision not to go the obvious question was why we would neglect to do something that might possibly save our son’s life.
The problem was that we had dozens of such suggestions, some from regular medicine though different from the course of treatment we had chosen with our oncologist’s advice, some from alternative medicine, and many from a spiritual perspective. We had suggestions on how to decorate his room, how to handle the water in our house, and how to organize his diet. At some point, you simply wear out from suggestions. You simply cannot do all of it, even if you want to.
A major problem is desperation, which leads you to do anything that might help, without any concern about whether it is very likely to do so. Friends are desperate as well, and they want to help. Under these circumstances the faith healer looks pretty good. Just go get anointed with oil and hands laid on you and it’s taken care of. Well, the bottom line for many people is that it isn’t, and after that the recriminations start. I know of a family, for example, who were told by a Methodist minister that if they had had enough faith, their loved one would have been healed. If your business is spiritual, can you admit simply that God doesn’t always heal, or even do so all that frequently, or do you have to find a reason why the activity failed?
Revival, American style, shares characteristics with American fast food. We want it to be exciting and fast. We would prefer to go to the faith healer, be declared healed, and go on our way. It certainly beats months of chemotherapy.
But I don’t think healing prayer is primarily about that, which is why I would not test it in that way. Healing prayer is primarily about spiritual, and by extension emotional, health. The healing services I attended fed into that spiritual health by combining the prayer with worship, explicitly discussing the expectations, and doing this all in the context of a supportive praying community, the church congregation. This can be done in a mass revival service, but it is easy to miss it. Further, in the revival service there is most commonly no follow-up to help a person with their expectations. If the revival preacher or faith healer lays hands on you and you remain ill, who is going to help you deal with your expectations? I recall one young man in trouble with the Brownsville revival who talked to me about his situation. He was happy that I would listen, he said, but what he really wanted was a half hour with his own pastor, something he was unlikely to get.
I believe that any time we put our primary focus on the physical–material wealth, physical healing, visible effects of the Spirit’s presence–we will produce many negative results. Pastors in the area of a revival need to be aware of this and be prepared to support their members. One key issue here which might need more comment: Being a blanket critic of the revival is likely to turn away the very people you could help. If you affirm a person’s desire for a touch from God, and then help them work through their expectations, you will have opportunities to provide balance for them that they are unlikely to get at a revival service. Implying that they were stupid for seeking prayer is unlikely to be helpful.
I would describe this as the primary failing of churches in the Pensacola area during the Brownsville revival. People showed up in churches after they had accepted Christ at the revival, or church members returned to their home church after the revival service, only to hear condemnation. Discerning comment on weaknesses is necessary. Affirmation of people’s needs and of the blessings that many receive helps establish the ground. Then you can fill in the blanks and balance the imbalances where they occur.
I have been rambling a bit, but I hope these thoughts will be of help to people in relating to revival. I’m in no way telling people not to go and experience whatever they believe God has called them to do. But the more people there are and the more excitement, the more discernment is necessary.
Henry, you have made many wise points here. It is right to focus not on manifestations (a lesson for detractors as well as enthusiasts!) but on the fruit of the Spirit. Also there is clearly a problem if people for whom things are not going well do not have access to personal pastoral care.
But I have to differ from you over your presuppositions, which I think are as much liberal as charismatic. For you seem to believe in a separation between the spiritual world and the material one; the former is very real but cannot actually affect the latter except perhaps through the mind. This presupposition seems to show when you write:
In other words, it seems that you don’t believe in real miraculous healing, that God really changes something in the physical body, but just that people might get better for reasons which are medically explicable if not actually medically predicted. Is that fair comment?
The problem I see is that this conflicts with another point you make:
Well, if you accept the Bible as a trustworthy record of such matters, God was very willing to heal in the time of Jesus and the apostles, and indeed healed everyone who came to Jesus. And many of the healing miracles recorded in the Bible, like many of those reported by Todd Bentley, are not medically explicable. If you really believe that God is just as willing to heal now, why don’t you believe that he does so? I understand your concern about putting him to the test. But Todd has provided apparent medical documentation for a number of his healings. He can hardly make up a child being raised from the dead after two nights in a hospital.
Now, Henry, I accept that as a liberal you may in fact be a deist, not believing that God actually intervenes in the world today. Or perhaps you may believe that God can communicate through human minds but cannot affect the real physical world. Presumably this would imply that you don’t believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. If this is your position, then at least it is consistent. But it is not the genuine theistic position, which is that God is always at work in his world, keeping it going so that even physical matter cannot remain in existence without his continuing upholding. Thus he is able to intervene in it at will, and healing is no problem for him at all. This is Todd’s position and mine, although I sometimes struggle with it. Is it yours?
Well, it’s fair within the context of the current post in which I have not fully expressed my view on the topic, but it is not in fact an accurate reflection of my views.
I believe that God can heal. I also am aware of numerous instances in which I believe that he has healed, but that is the way I interpret the events by faith. Evidence for such miracles, however, remains problematic in my view. Further, I do not believe that God’s standard method of operating is by violating his natural laws. Miracles are exceptions, not the rule, and are primarily intended to communicate. By communication, however, I don’t exclude direct effect on the physical world; I just believe that God likes the way he made the world function, and normally allows it to do just that.
My most comprehensive direct statement on this is in my three Hand of God essays part 1, part 2, and part 3. Usually I’m accused of being an inconsistent deist or a weak theist, but I can live with that.
Let me move to your story of raising the dead. I have yet to be convinced of such a modern story. I’m not calling anyone a liar, but I have heard testimonies weeks later of events I have personally witnessed, and those stories get altered substantially. I would like either to witness such a thing, or to have it evaluated by someone I would consider unbiased. Note that I do not criticize you for using the example provided you are convinced of it, but please forgive me for not picking it up with the evidence that I have right now.
I fully believe that God can raise the dead–see below on the bodily resurrection. I am more skeptical of the particular instances.
Well, no, that’s not it either. I regard the incarnation as actual, and I also accept the bodily resurrection. In fact, it’s the clearest example of a miracle of communication, the physical expressing the redemption of the physical world. The purpose is communication, but the effect is physical.
Absolutely. I teach it in the form that every movement of every subatomic particle moves by God’s will. His will is simply so consistent in these matters that we can do science. My difference, as I see it right now, with Bentley and with you is the extent to which God will alter the consistency of his will so as to perform a miracle. I believe God does so more rarely, and for specific purposes other than the immediate physical impact; you both seem to believe he does so much more often.
Thanks, Henry. I would agree with you that miracles are rare, relative to God’s normal activity in the world, and are intended to communicate.
But how rare? I think that is really where we differ. Are miracles so rare that few can expect to witness one and none should presume to ask for one? I accept that is a possible position. But it does, surely, invalidate any kind of healing service, both Todd’s and your lower key Methodist ones – unless you say they are only intended to make people feel better about themselves, not to expect any real healing. I would say rather that miracles are not so rare, and in fact that any believer has the right to request one of God. But I realise that this needs to be explored in more depth.
Your three Hand of God links in fact link back to this post. That’s a shame because I would like to read those posts.
What you say about the modern stories of raising the dead is fair enough, I don’t know the full story.
I fixed the links in the comment. I put the shells of the links and then forgot to paste the actual links. Those essays are several years old, but still reflect my views fairly well. I vary from day to day on the quantity.
Two points:
1. Rare doesn’t mean that one can’t or shouldn’t ask. I prayed for the healing of my son, and though I didn’t hang my faith on it, I continued to pray until the last moment. I’m recalling a C. S. Lewis quote from a movie, though I believe it’s authentic. When asked if he expected to change God with reference to his wife’s cancer he said, “I don’t pray to change God; I pray because I can’t help it.” Or words to that effect.
2. Even if there was merely a spiritual healing and a peace, I would regard the healing services as useful. Having experienced terminal illness in my own family and with people very close to me, I put an extremely high value on that peace.
Because of those two things I regard healing prayer as valuable. There is a peace and the experience of God’s presence that has been consistent in my experience. That helps with physical healing as well. And if there is a physical healing that can be seen right off, that’s great. If you believe, as I do, that there is a possibility of either an assist to normal healing or a full healing, would it have to be that common for you to feel that ou should ask?
Peter, one more point that I forgot to mention–the benefit of a miracle of communication that might guide one toward the best course of treatment out of the many offered. Communication should not be downplayed as a way of impacting the physical world.
From the linked site:
That evening, as well as several dramatic healings testified to by nurses who had brought their sick patients for healing, there were no less than four testimonies of people being raised from the dead. These included a stillborn baby, a woman who dropped dead in a gym, and a baby who drowned in a pool; medical or paramedical staff had given up on all of these but after prayer they came back to life. Most dramatic was the story of a three year old girl who was pronounced dead on a Monday night and came back to life on the Wednesday morning, in a hospital on the way to being cut up for organ donation.
Wait… why would someone be asking for healing for a kid who was two days dead?
More generally, I note that the site provides absolutely no documentation for any of its claims. You claim that Todd can “hardly make up” this stuff. I’d be very interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
More linked text: So for these people, as well as for those with a materialistic and atheistic worldview, miraculous healing simply cannot happen, and therefore any reports of it must be fakes.
As someone with a “materialistic and atheistic worldview”, I call shenanigans. The reason these things are not usually reported is that, when examined sufficiently carefully, they usually turn out to be unmitigated rubbish. So far the only exceptions to this rule are the situations where there is insufficient data to make an informed judgement.
Skeptical atheists like myself are open to evidence of God, but it must be evidence not socially-amplified shaggy-dog stories. I’ve been looking for such evidence for about a decade now. So far so atheistic.
Thus he is able to intervene in it at will, and healing is no problem for him at all.
If you really believe this, I’d like to discuss with you the possibility of putting this to the test. It is fairly easy to come up with a trial protocol that confirms whether or not a given miracle is genuine.
I should warn you that I’ve attempted trials of this sort a couple of times before with a couple of different religious folks, and we’ve yet to get a positive result. (Yes, us atheists are just soooo closed-minded.)
Well, where do I start?…LOL
First, you, like many others, IMO, are mixing up five different movements. They are regular (Second-wave) charismatic, Third Wave Charismatic (the Toronto-Brownsville crowd), Word of Faith who are PENTECOSTAL, regular Pentecostal (AG, Foursquare, COGIC), and Oneness Pentecostal.
Second, msot people do not understand faith teaching, which by the way, most Third Wave Charismatics do not do–they present the latter rain teaching of impartation which in my opinion borders on the occult. Bently is in this group although once in a while he does teach healing in the atonement. But it’s thrown together with so much other garbage, that me-thinks it gets lost in the shuffle. Faith teaching has a good Biblical foundation if people would care to understand and study it. It includes our covenant through Jesus covenant and what He did at the cross.
Sadly, many faith followers and pastors have “summarized” it and blather about someone “not having enough faith.” I do hope you will find out what real faith healing is theologically that is….:)
Diane, since yours is a first level comment I have to assume you’re responding to my original post, rather than to a comment, either mine or others. So looking at the original post, I would ask in what way expression of an understanding of these different movements would change what I said.
I don’t see it. I am acquainted with those various views, and I would come back with the same set of cautions about each one of them. I think that the divisions are much less precise in practice than on paper. For example technical distinctions between charismatic and pentecostal are often quite confused in actual congregations.
Is this a matter of telling me I didn’t include an encyclopedia on the topic in a blog post and thus I’m completely off track, or could you be more specific? If you believe I’ve committed too many errors to enumerate choose one and let me know how that error impacts the point I’m trying to make.
Henry,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My central thesis is healing should always be understood in light of the bearing of our sicknesses at the cross by Jesus(Matt. 8:17); in other words, healing in the atonement. Most people, when discussing healing, don’t really discuss this too much. If healing in the atonement is true, then it has really big implications for Christians who are in the covenant. This is precisely what the original faith teachers (as opposed to the current “self-esteem teaching” crop of faith teachers) were and are teaching (i.e. Hagin, Copeland, et. al).
I rarely have heard this in the Third Wave revival. They are into impartation” which I consider to either border on the occultic or actually be right into it. As for the mainstream Pentecostal churches like AG, 4square and COGIC, although healing in the atonement is in their statements of faith, I don’t find them talking alot about it either except perhaps in a few churches. The late Head Bishop of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) was very strong in his preaching of it but I don’t know if the typical COGIC talks about it much or not
So, in summary, I guess I’m saying that any discussion about healing really should start and be based throughout on the atonement and whether sickness was carried substitutionarily by Jesus or not. If not, then I’m not sure what the foundation for healing is except for”whenever God wants to do it-che sera sera-” or through “impartations” from “special anointed” people.
Diane,
For the most part I agree with what you’re saying. If I set out to write an essay on the right approach to healing it would have to start with the incarnation. But theology (in a technical or academic sense) isn’t really my primary field. My question is really practical.
When I deal with someone who is wondering just what to do about prayer for healing, often presented in opposition to medical science, the issue is simply what to do. If a preacher promises reliable healing results, then I would avoid them for practical reasons, i.e. I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that they’re right. People go to such a preacher as opposed to medical treatment, rather than working along. I think, for example, that God’s answer to a prayer for healing my be guidance in one’s natural process of healing or strength to endure the trial that presents itself. It’s the “vending machine” view that bothers me.
That is all I was addressing. Now a solid theological foundation can help prevent people from speaking as though prayer was an easier alternative to anything else, but that would be another.
In your final comment, I would say that even grounded in the incarnation, I would say of everything “whenever God wants to do it.” I do not agree that God wills everyone to be physically healed in this life. I am a strong proponent of prayer that is absolutely surrendered to God’s will, even when his will is not the same as mine, as it frequently is not.
Oh dear, Diane, I had better tear Acts 13:2-3, 2 Timothy 1:6 etc out of my Bibles. They are clearly about “impartation”, of just the kind that Todd Bentley practices, and so “either border on the occultic or actually [are] right into it”! ;-(
Peter,
By impartation from many of the Third Wave Charismatics, I was signifying that perhaps there was something being imparted that was occultic because of what they were beleiving and practicing. Those following the Word and Spirit would probably impart the things of God.
So Todd’s impartation is OK then. Glad to hear it. Or are you suggesting that he is not “following the Word and Spirit”? So far the only thing he does that you have criticised is impartation.
Peter,
I do not agree with pretty much anything Bentley does. I was just discussing one aspect of his ministry–in fact what I consider the main problem and danger of it. That would be a false impartation.
Diane and others, I have discussed Todd Bentley’s impartation here. But when it comes down to it, it seems that our disagreement is not about impartation but about the general character of Todd’s ministry. I have written a whole series of posts about this.
Hey, I really enjoyed reading this. Im interested in learning more. Id also like to share with you this book I finished that might offer you some new insights. Its called Harmonic Wealth and its all about finding harmony in your life in all areas – financial, relational, mental, physical, and spiritual. It has some really good tips about how to engage all five pillars (or areas) of your life, and to learn more about how they complement each other. Rather than dealing with each issue individually, maybe take a look at the bigger picture.
Heres the link to the book I recommend: harmonicwealth.com/read